On 2010-06-25 12:19 , CheekyGeek wrote:
Regarding the original question, we should probably define our terms.
What do YOU mean by "Macro".
A lot of zooms have "macro" settings but only get you to 1:4 or 1:5.
Are you needing 1:1? 1:2?
good question, the refconverter idea has me thinking too ...
i probably want at least 1:2; i'm now using a 16-45, which has a fairly
satisfying 1:4 for my current project -- cataloging my fairly large
plant collection; but in the process i'm learning more about
identification, which often means tiny details, and also i'm enjoying
insects; in any case, i'm often at minimum distance (which is about 4",
rather than the "0.28m" (11") stamped on the focus ring -- maybe the
magnification is more than advertised too?
the camera is k200d
i understand the green button pretty well (i've used it a lot with M
50/1.4), but i feel it does slow me down a bit; i tend to move from
plant to plant and exposure changes a lot
among my challenges are the crawling around, depth of field and
perspective; i thought a 100mm lens would give me some working distance
and improve perspective in some cases, but not help much with depth of
field (i generally want more) except perhaps allow me more comfort so i
can stop down more and wait for breezes to subside; i don't like the
results above ISO 400 on this camera, and prefer 200 for flowers, and
i'm often in shade, so i'm often at f8 and about 1/30 sec
i'm basically casting about for the value option combined with best
practices; maybe a refconverter and an extension tube and/or 2x
teleconverter on my 50/1.4 would be a better choice for my budget
suggestions so far are good food for thought, thanks all
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
